Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rtoz sends this news from the BBC: The UK government has announced that driverless cars will be allowed on public roads starting in January next year. It also invited cities to compete to host one of three trials of the tech, which would start at the same time. In addition, ministers ordered a review of the UK's road regulations to provide appropriate guidelines. ... The debate now is whether to allow cars, like the prototype unveiled by Google in May, to abandon controls including a steering wheel and pedals and rely on the vehicle's computer. Or whether, instead, to allow the machine to drive, but insist a passenger be ready to wrest back control at a moment's notice.

Obviously the US will not have this for some time ("Oh my god, somebody might sue!"), it's nice to see at least some countries see the advantage of cars that can drive themselves better than humans can drive them, even if the self-driving cars are not perfect. I would expect initially they would require a licensed driver behind the wheel, at least until the technology has proven itself.

Except for the fact that it was the vehicle trials which occurred in the US (california, nevada), trials that demonstrated the safety of these vehicles and which have caused the UK to fully allow them on the roads in Jan 2014, rather than their initial plans for trials to occur by the end of 2013. While the article does not explicitly state this to be the reason for the change, I believe it to be a fair presumption that the 300,000 miles google's cars have driven in Califonia were taken into consideration.

Except for the fact that it was the vehicle trials which occurred in the US (california, nevada), trials that demonstrated the safety of these vehicles and which have caused the UK to fully allow them on the roads in Jan 2014, rather than their initial plans for trials to occur by the end of 2013. While the article does not explicitly state this to be the reason for the change, I believe it to be a fair presumption that the 300,000 miles google's cars have driven in Califonia were taken into consideration.

Trials are different than allowing manufacturers to sell driverless cars or allowing the general public to drive them. Even the Nevada law just instructs the DOT to set safety standards for driverless cars, which they have not yet completed. That also doesn't address insurance, which all cars in the US are required to have to drive on public roads. If the insurance companies won't insure the cars because of the litigation-happy Americans, the only way to drive such a car would be to underwrite the insura

And incidentally, I assure you that insurance companies will be MORE than eager to offer reduced premiums to drivers of cars which eliminate human error. This is a foregone conclusion, and it will begin with the automation trucking and shipping and extend from there.

Hi. I work for an insurer. We cannot wait for driverless cars. Sure, there will be some difficult accidents and difficult litigation, especially initially, but that will be nothing compared to getting rid of the rear-end texting shunts, SMIDSY collisions, running red lights, and all the stupid-ass things that motorists already do that cost us money. Bring it on.

Once they start to roll, there will be a logical progression of complaints, starting with "They're too slow."Next will be "They're blocking traffic flow/causing traffic jams."Possibly among the next bunch of complaints:"They move erratically/unpredictably""They wait too long at/stop too soon for traffic lights"

Most of the complaints will revolve around the simple fact that the autonomous cars will be driving 100% according to the rules of the road, and 95+% of the remaining drivers don't. Things like stopping for yellow lights, driving at the actual speed limit, slowing for merging traffic, properly signalling turns and lane-changes, etc.

In the end, the autonomous cars will reduce traffic jams, as they can intelligently travel in clusters, all in communication with each other, and even vary their routes for volume, all while staying moving at a reasonable clip.

The problem will come in when people deliberately try to mess with them, forcing them into emergency maneuvers by cutting them off for exits (for example), or cutting in front and slamming on the breaks (road rage).

Here's hoping they are outfitted with outward-facing cameras for recording such acts of stupidity.

Agreed. People are going to freak out about that car in front of them following the rules 100%

Humans play it fast and loose... we either gamble or assume from experience that a cop won't pull us over on this particular stretch of road for going 5MpH over the speed limit but the WILL on that stretch or at that time of day.

But... some cops / towns WILL pull you over for just going 1MpH over the speed limit. It's rare, but it happens.

So the car will have to be built to follow the rules exactly: speed limit,

It will be fun figuring out how to game the automatic vehicles. I'm sure they're programmed in some situations to pull aside. All you have to do is figure out what the trigger is. It's like playing with the blind spot sensors on the vehicle in front of yours.

It will be fun figuring out how to game the automatic vehicles. I'm sure they're programmed in some situations to pull aside. All you have to do is figure out what the trigger is. It's like playing with the blind spot sensors on the vehicle in front of yours.

This cars will be driverless, but not passengerless. And they will have lots of cameras taking evidence. So when you collected enough points to lose your license, you'll have to buy a self-driving car yourself.

I think that the main reason people speed, race the yellow, and in other ways behave as general asshats when behind the wheel is the inherent understanding that every second spent driving is a wasted second. You notice you rarely see passengers road raging. Once everyone becomes a passenger, and transit time becomes productive time, whether it involves work, updating facebook, playing games, or getting a few extra minutes of sleep, much of the incentive to rush goes away.

Personally, I generally drive like a bat out of hell, and regularly am cussing the idiots who wont get out of my way. But, once I get my autonomous vehicle (I plan to be a very early adopter) I won't care that the car is doing the speed limit, stopping when I would have chanced it, not changing lanes into the "fastest", etc. I'll be reading, sleeping, gaming, etc. In fact, once my commute becomes reliable productive time, I can see myself getting irritated that I get to my destination before I've finished my chapter, level, quest, etc.

- Plane is running late- Their train hits a snag: trouble on the rails, power issue, etc.- Their bus hits traffic- Their ferry is running late

Plane rage is the worst... but people (in the US) keep their cool inside the plane because they don't want to get sky-marshalled or put on a no-fly list. Then again I've never been in a "wait on the runway for 5 hours in the hot summer" situation.

The train rage is the next strongest of the three... though nowhere near as bad as on the road.

I hate being a passenger because I can't read in cars without feeling sick. All I can do is listen to the radio or audio books. The seats are too uncomfortable to sleep in... But perhaps if someone made a car with seats that folded flat like a bed it would work.

Agreed - every complaint about self-driving cars has been for the migration time when there are both autonomous and human-driven vehicles on the roads.

When you take human drivers out of the equation, and autonomous vehicles are the norm, utilizing things like mesh networks to keep other nearby vehicles informed, all of the complaints suddenly disappear.

Autonomous cars might wait at lights longer, and stop for more yellow lights, but imagine a line of vehicles stopped at a light all accelerating at the exact

I'd imagine that a lot of drivers would end up switching to autonomous cars for financial reasons. If the insurance rates are dramatically cut for autonomous vehicles (which is extremely likely) then it's going to end up being cheaper to not drive. There's many other advantages as well - you may not need to run two cars if you can commute to work in one and have it drive back home for your spouse's use during the day.

I think the finances would work in favour of shared use of autonomous car networks. Most

I, for one, will NEVER ride in or own a vehicle that does not have a steering wheel, foot-actuated throttle pedal, foot-actuated brake pedal, foot-actuated clutch pedal (where applicable), gear selector lever, etc. and I know I'm not alone in this. I don't care HOW foolproof they make them. I will NEVER put my life in the hands of some programmer or team of programmers, not even if they're riding in the car with me. I'd sooner go back to riding a motorcycle 100% of the time, all year 'round, and by the way

You do realize that unless you're driving a 1950 era automobile, you're already putting your life into the hands of programmers

What do you think happens when you step on the gas pedal? Do you think it's still physically pulling some cable that opens flapper valves, allowing more fuel to flow into a carburetor? Nope. It's all electronic now. You stepping on the gas sends a single to a computer "He's pushing for 25% throttle" which was designed by programmers to actuate your fuel injection at the proper flow rate.

What about that transmission? Unless you drive manual, you're not actually moving gears around with that lever. You're sending a signal to a computer "Put it in drive" which was also designed by a programmer.

Brakes still have a physical connection, for now, but that's only as a backup. The vast majority of your breaking is done digitally, just like the throttle

What do you think happens when you step on the gas pedal? Do you think it's still physically pulling some cable that opens flapper valves, allowing more fuel to flow into a carburetor?

I haven't worked on anything newer than about 10 years old but every fuel-injected petrol engine I've played with has had a mechanical butterfly valve operated by the pedal. The fancy electronics then measures mass flow rate (which is a function of throttle plate position, air temperature, air filter condition, engine rpm, etc) and injects the right amount of fuel. It's not *that* different from a mechanical carburettor except that carburettors measure volumetric flow and have to be tweaked for summer/winte

But truthfully, it's only getting more and more digital, even without the computers controlling the actual steering (yet). You mentioned a threshold of ~10 years back. That's a lot of time for change. I promise you, you won't find any butterfly valves on a Tesla or Nissan Leaf (and this is half true for Hybrid cars.) I'm also fairly certain that they don't have Manual Transmission options.

It's going to be a slow process, to be sure... but frankly, I already trust a comput

I, for one, will NEVER ride in or own a vehicle that does not have a steering wheel, foot-actuated throttle pedal, foot-actuated brake pedal, foot-actuated clutch pedal (where applicable), gear selector lever, etc. and I know I'm not alone in this

You never ride the subway, then? I don't think trains have steering wheels...

Subway cars and trains run on tracks, they can't be sent off in arbitrary directions. Other than that I'm sure there are manual overrides to activate mechanical brakes. Not even a valid comparison so far as I'm concerned.

Someone else mentioned planes. I rarely fly anywhere nor do I anticipate much of a need to do so anytime in the near future. I'm talking about automobiles here.

Does my Toyota Tacoma have a potentiometer connected to the throttle pedal? Yes. Do I not have control of the vehicle? Sure I do,

I, for one, will NEVER ride in or own a vehicle that does not have a steering wheel, foot-actuated throttle pedal, foot-actuated brake pedal, foot-actuated clutch pedal (where applicable), gear selector lever, etc. and I know I'm not alone in this. I don't care HOW foolproof they make them. I will NEVER put my life in the hands of some programmer or team of programmers, not even if they're riding in the car with me.

Have you ever used a train, including a metro train? A good many are electronically controlled (rather than levers etc), and -- especially on metro systems -- many have no more input from a driver than a "ready to proceed" button. Some don't even need the driver to press the button -- usually when there's not a union in the way. Signalling systems have been electronic for ages.

(Yes, cars are a lot more complicated -- but automatic trains have been running since the 1980s.)

Bad comparison (although I'm pro-driverless car), unless you're thinking of dedicated driver-free lanes that basically turns the supposedly autonomous vehicles into glorified train cars. You might as well say that driverless cars are as safe as elevators and when was the last time an elevator killed someone?

Do you ever fly? All modern aircraft use fly-by-wire, so you are trusting the programmers. Most modern cars have some kind of drive-by-wire system, especially performance models that often do things like braking force distribution and traction control.

I don't see why driving within the speed limits would cause any major problems as on most motorways, they'd be spending most of their time in the left-most (slowest) lane. The other lanes are for overtaking and they shouldn't need to do much overtaking. If they do need to overtake, then I imagine it would make sense to exceed the speed limit just whilst they are overtaking so that they safely join the faster flow.

Some vehicles (coaches and buses generally) are speed limited and can't go above 70mph and they don't cause more crashes as far as I know. I reckon that people will soon get used to the conservative behaviour of driverless cars. It's got to be a lot less annoying than some of the hyper-aggressive or distracted drivers.

We have 30k+ deaths a year from traffic accidents in the US. The UK could not be too far behind per capita. Driverless cars have a flawless safety record. Even if they screw up and kill somebody it won't be anything like 30k/year. That means every day we don't deploy driverless cars here kills something like 90 people. It's sad governments seem more interested in BS like lawsuits, gun control and drug wars instead of actually preventing people from dying.

This argument contains a number of problems, none of which completely invalidate what you're trying to say:

1. Concorde wasn't discontinued due to passenger safety risks. It was expensive to buy, expensive to fly, and expensive to maintain.2. If a severe accident caused by an autonomous car happened today, right now, 2 or 3 even, it would still have a substantially better average safety to mile driven record against the average driver. Right now it's beating out good drivers and tying exceptional drivers

Okay. It goes like this:1. I acknowledged that my points didn't invalidate what they were trying to say2. They purposefully drew a parallel to a failed technology. This comparison naturally suggests a sub-textual argument that the failure was due to the alluded reason. This wasn't the intended point(see #1) but it was nonetheless an argument by implication. Clarifying this distinction can help to identify a more appropriate parallel.3. You really need to consider how dedicated you

That's a good point, however driverless cars are still being used in very controlled situations, and for the moment require a huge, expensive array of sensors coupled with fragile, powerful and expensive computers. Even if we wanted we could not replace a significant number of cars on the road with driverless ones. The problem is not some kind of legal or administrative red tape, the problem is to make the technology simple enough, robust enough and cheap enough that it comes by default on most new cars lik

Actually, the UK has significantly less - something like 3/4 per 10,000 as opposed to the US, which is something over 10 per 10,000. The disparity is smaller after controlling for miles driven but still around half. Mostly due to better driver training, safety standards enforcement, and drink-driving laws.

Wikipedia has a nice table of the relevant data [wikipedia.org]. Per capita statistics are a bit misleading as they don't count for different levels of car ownership. Per vehicle statistics are a bit better. The UK has 6.2 fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles (per year), whereas the USA has 13.6. Generalising this to 'Europe in general' doesn't really work though: Greece, for example, has 13.8 and Portugal has 18.

Even that doesn't tell the whole story though, because people in the UK laugh hysterically when we hear how long people in the USA think a reasonable daily commute is and so cars in the USA are likely to be driven further, which might account for the difference. Taking that into account and using the numbers for fatalities per billion km driven, the UK has 4.3 and the USA 7.6 , so under twice as many. As the grandparent said: not too far behind.

I think what matters is how many people are killed. The page you linked stated that per 100,000 people 3.5 UK people are killed and 11.6 US people are killed meaning for the average person US is over 3 times more dangerous. That's a long way behind.

Requiring a human to be ready and able to take control in an emergency is just plain dumb. The human in question will be distracted. They'll be texting or playing Flappy Birds or doing any number of things that a passenger might do during a commute. Even if you require that their hands be on the wheel at all times they'll get bored and daydream and be absolutely useless in an emergency situation.

The only reason you'd want to require human controls would be in case the vehicle gets into a (non-emergency) situation that it can't deal with. Think about a situation that would normally be wrong, like parking on a lawn or driving on the wrong side of the road due to a blockage or something like that. Something that requires a judgement weighing the letter of the law against the practical realities of the situation.

I agree. Expecting a driver who's had no interaction with the vehicle for a long period of time to be alert and ready to grab the wheel is a fantasy. Having a "no driver" vehicle from the beginning is the better approach than relying on the fiction of an alert and ready human backup driver.

One article I read about VW's automatic steering mentioned that the driver always have to have their hands on the wheel, indicating their presence and keeping them engaged. That seems a better idea than a system that w

Look at how many people drive into the ocean or off an offramp into a pit when their GPS says to do so.

Now multiply it by 65 mph fiery balls of doom.

Throw in a few bad weather conditions - floods (drowning), bridge failures (plummet to death), three cars all aiming for you at the same time - and you've got lifetime employment for every English Barrister.

The human at the wheel is there to take the blame in case something goes wrong. The requirement of having a human at the wheel will also soothe the fears of passengers of both autonomous* and manually driven automobiles, a measure that should help the adaptation of autonomous vehicles and thus save lives.

Whenever I travel to the UK, I'm impressed and often overwhelmed with the level of visual information that there is when driving - UK roads are fantastically well lined and signposted, they are especially good at night with reflectors/cats eyes down the middle of the road and often different colored ones on the side of the road. As you drive down a freeway/motorway there will typically be at least 4 or 5 signs warning you of a turn-off - two actual directions, and then 100m count-down signs! In the US, you're lucky if there's more than one, and usually that one single sign is just before the turn-off! Of course, computer-driven cars will be able to use GPS/satNav, but driving in the UK is like driving a video game compared to the US. In a lot of Colorado cities, they don't even paint a line across the road at the stop/traffic lights!

We had a relative from Europe complain about our lack of signage. He lives in Austria but he travels all over.

In any case, he was under the impression that our highways and roads would have way way more signs stating how to get to the various cities. Like that exit 26 would help you get to towns W / X / Y/ Z. Or that every-other intersection in town would say would list 6 nearby towns and distance/direction.

We tried to tell him that at least in our state, the most you would see is the city that a freeway

...we will forget how to drive. Do you really want someone who hasn't driven in months or years to suddenly wrest control of the car during an emergency situation and expect the outcome to be better than what the computer could handle?

Because, if it's a driverless car, I'm not taking any control or responsibility for the vehicle other than telling it my destination.

If the car can suddenly say "Oh, crap, you take over I don't know what to do" then it defeats the purpose.

If you're going to have truly driverless cars, then you need to determine who takes liability if it runs over a person. Because I'm going to be sleeping in the back seat or reading a book.

Somehow, I doubt the companies making these cars have stepped up and said they're so confident in their technology that they'll take responsibility. And someone who has disengaged themselves from the act of driving (like reading a book) can't immediately switch to being in control of the vehicle. If I have to keep tabs on it and be responsible at a moments notice, then what is the benefit at all?

Every time this comes up, it just seems like nobody has actually addressed this yet.

You want a driverless car? Make sure I can crawl into the backseat after a night at the pub and not have to worry about it. Until then, this is really advanced cruise control, but you still need to be aware the whole time.

This is one of the many reasons why I won't be an adopter, or at least an early adopter.

If I have to babysit the car second-to-second, then there's little point in having the car.

And I won't trust the car to not malfunction and kill me or someone else, so chances are I will be monitoring it. Maybe the car companies / Google / whoever will say "trust me, you can sleep in the back seat" but I'll have a hard time accepting that for at least another 15 years.

Once we're stepping out of the realm of advanced cruise control and into active driving, it will clash even if they don't want to take responsibility. "I didn't expect my car to make the turn and fail to yield, you can't expect me to undo every mistake" "I saw it coming and could brake down, but my car didn't realize and speeded up and caused the accident" "I tried to hit the ditch and avoid those school kids but my car refused to go off the road, running them over."

The owner will need insurance, but it will be much lower for self driving cars without any manual controls. Even self driving cars with a manual mode will be cheaper, on the assumption that people will drive on auto much of the time.

The owner will need insurance, but it will be much lower for self driving cars without any manual controls. Even self driving cars with a manual mode will be cheaper, on the assumption that people will drive on auto much of the time.

In the UK, you'd have to consider what a driver with a normal car would be. If you just got your driving license, the cost of insurance is incredibly high. On the other hand, a self driving car with the most inexperienced and reckless driver as a passenger will be just as safe as a self driving car with an experienced and careful driver as passenger. So for young people, the insurance savings will be enormous.

Even if the system requires babysitting, it will probably improve the performance of impaired drivers. Think sleepy, drunk, or old people with poor attention, perception, and/or reaction time, narcoleptics, diabetics who got careless about blood sugar, "indestructible" teenage drivers, Mr I-Can't-Leave-My-Cellphone-For-Five-Minutes, parents with cranky kids, Mrs I-Can-Eat-Drink-And-Put-On-Makeup-Whlie-Driving, Mr I-Talk-With-My-Hands-And-Always-Make-Eye-Contact, folks who like to gawk at accidents/scenery/g

"If the accident was caused by lack of maintenance, then its the owners fault. Otherwise its the manufactures fault."

Are owner's responsible for every aspect of maintence now? If I have a flat on a bald tire and someone gets hit, am I responsible now? If I take it to a mechanic and they sigh off on it, are they responsible?

As a motorcyclist I'm deeply concerned about the possibility of driverless cars on the roads. I don't think the state of AI and computers is anywhere near sophisticated enough to control a vehicle safely in traffic. Lord knows, cars with real drivers are dangerous enough already

Since when government needs to allow me something?Am I a slave that has no rights, that I must wait for government to grant me them?I think it works the other way around: they can disallow something if it is that important for the society to do so. And what is not banned, is allowed by default.Fu*k today's governments and stupid pleb people.

Probably a troll, but I'll bite.

Here in the states, driving isn't a right... it's a privilege. I imagine this phrase is popular in the UK as well.

If you want to drive then you have to follow their rules and demands... else get fined or imprisoned for breaking the rules and risking the safety of others.

This means being properly licensed, having a car that has been inspected and approved for use on the roads, and following they various rules and regulations.

... is technically incorrect, though in general practice it sure does seem that way.

The "privilege" is that of driving on public roads. Just about anyone can legally drive just about anything on their own land (ex. young kids operating farm machinery).

The AC was almost right, except that we (at least in the US) already put laws in place banning various driving situations, like driving in public without a license, or without insurance, or with an unregistered car, etc etc (most of which